Legal humor. Seriously.

Posts from April 2009

Speaking to a group of students on April 13 at a dinner sponsored by the Bill of Rights Institute, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas admitted that he is perpetually enthralled by the Miracle of the Dishwashing Machine:

I have to admit . . . that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way . . . . I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.

He got on this subject because he was talking about how, in his view, people should remember that things like the magic dish-box, the horseless carriage, and even Mr. Bell's Long-Distance-Shouting Device are luxuries, not entitlements. "It seems that many have come to think that each of us is owed prosperity and a certain standard of living," he said. "They're owed air-conditioning, cars, telephones, televisions." Not so, he opined. (He did not speak, like everybody's grandpa, of how back in his day he had to walk 20 miles to school through a waist-deep swamp or whatever, but I would guess that he probably did have to wash the dishes by hand.)

These aren't rights, Thomas told the kids. In fact, he made pretty clear that he thinks this whole "rights" business is way overdone these days. "Today there is much focus on our rights," he said, a little disapprovingly. "Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights. I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances. Shouldn't there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?" Which Constitution is this again? This demoting of the Bill of Rights to being just part of a trinity might have puzzled students a little, especially given that Thomas was speaking at the "Bill of Rights Institute."

Rather than dwell on that too much, though, I prefer to linger on my mental picture of Justice Thomas relaxing at home in his slippers, loading and unloading the dishwasher, and yanking the door open every now and then to try to catch that magical moment when the dishes actually get clean.

Police in Burnsville, Minnesota, said that Kyle Fletcher went out onto his patio deck on April 3 with a powerful compound bow and fired several arrows into neighboring homes in an effort to impress a woman. Police found arrows embedded in the siding of several homes in the area, and one had shattered a glass patio door.

Surprisingly, alcohol was involved. Fletcher's female companion said that the two had been "drinking all night" and at some point, she said, Fletcher decided to "play Rambo." Both were still "extremely intoxicated" when police arrived.

Police said that Fletcher at first tried to deny he was the archer, but had trouble explaining the presence of a compound bow on his patio deck and the arrows that were on his floor. (I imagine that a set of imaginary lines drawn along the arrow shafts back toward the point of origin would have intersected on Fletcher's deck, but they did not need to get CSI involved to solve this particular mystery.) Confronted with the evidence, Fletcher eventually admitted that he had assaulted the innocent homes "for sh*ts and giggles." Regardless of the motive, it appears that in Minnesota this constitutes first-degree criminal damage to property, which is a felony.

The report did not say whether or not the woman had been successfully impressed.

A woman called the emergency hotline in Haltom City, Texas, on Monday to demand police intervention after she did not get extra shrimp in her fried rice at a local restaurant. In the call, released Tuesday, the woman can be heard expressing her frustration to a dispatcher. "[T]o get a police officer up here, what has to happen?" asked the seafood-deficit sufferer. Apparently she had requested extra shrimp, which were not forthcoming. "He didn't even put extra shrimp in there," she said, suggesting "he" had done something wrong before the extra-shrimp issue even arose.

Luckily for her, the woman had left the restaurant before police arrived to deal with the emergency.

A remarkable number of people believe that most of one's legal troubles can be cured by declaring oneself to be an independent sovereign nation. Usually this has to do with tax issues, as we saw a while back when a couple in Florida declared themselves independent. (They did continue to collect Social Security payments from the United States government, possibly as tribute?) But in this case, the doctrine was invoked by the Republic of Scott Witmer, which on March 10th declared itself immune from DUI charges in Pennsylvania.

Witmer, 44, told Judge Leonard Zito that Pennsylvania courts and police have no jurisdiction over him because he's his own country. "I live inside myself, not in Pennsylvania," he said at a hearing. Most judges probably would not want their jurisdiction to extend inside Scott Witmer, but unfortunately for the defendant it was sufficient that a bailiff could grab him by his outside parts and toss him into jail.

Back the next day, Witmer again contended he was challenging the traffic stop on sovereign grounds. "Don't all our souls live within ourselves?" he asked Judge Zito. "Isn't this where you really live?" Witmer asked, pointing at himself. "Your metaphysical properties are not on trial here," the judge responded, and trial began.

Witmer (surprisingly) was representing himself -- that lasted until Thursday, when he gave up on the I'm-my-own-country defense and decided to plead guilty. "it was a real learning experience for me," Witmer said. "I wanted to try it out." And now you have.

Previously I wrote about Philip J. Berg, the lawyer who had sued to stop Obama from becoming president on the theory that Obama was not a "natural-born citizen," as the Constitution requires. That case was dismissed for lack of standing. See Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008). But a mere dismissal could not stop this legal crusade.

According to the court in Hollister v. Soetoro, decided in March, Berg found a "straw plaintiff" who agreed to file a case pursuing a different theory that Berg hoped might provide standing. His new argument - which is either ingenious or completely stupid, depending on your point of view - is that a value could somehow be assigned to the duties of Commander-in-Chief, that value could be "deposited" with the court, and plaintiff could then seek to have the duties "distributed" by means of a suit in interpleader.

In the opinion, the sentence describing that claim ended with an exclamation point, which is generally not a good sign if the court is describing your argument.

If you've forgotten (or blessedly never knew) what "interpleader" is, it's a lawsuit where the ownership of something is disputed and someone who wants that dispute resolved can sue to have a court settle the issue. That might sound mildly plausible here, but as the court pointed out, interpleader suits have to do with ownership of money or property, not constitutional powers. (Plaintiff claimed he had some stake in those powers because he was a retired Air Force officer who, he said, might one day be recalled to duty and have to struggle with whether to serve under a non-eligible President.)

Calling the lawsuit "frivolous," Judge James Robertson noted that the issue of Obama's citizenship had been "raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry" during the campaign, which seems to suggest that the judge believes enough time has been spent on the issue at this point.

Judge Robertson wrote that "[t]his case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do." The book I'm writing is not strictly about either of those topics, but close enough. "Even in its relatively short life," he continued, "the case has excited the blogosphere [true] and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end."

An administrative-law judge has ruled that the FAA properly revoked the license of a man who allowed a sex act to be performed upon him as he flew a helicopter around San Diego. The judge cited the pilot's likely inability to respond to a flight emergency, should one have arisen while his pants were down around his knees.

"The evidence clearly shows grossly reckless conduct on the part of the respondent," David Martz, ruled National Transportation Safety Board judge William Mullins. By "evidence," he mostly meant a video of the incident that had surfaced, as all such videos do, on the Internet. Judge Mullins had just reviewed the video in chambers, accompanied by Martz, his lawyer and FAA officials. The viewing, which lasted about an hour, was probably not at all uncomfortable.

The other participant in the aerobatic maneuver was not named, but according to reports she has been identified as a Swedish adult film star. Not only was she not acting as co-pilot, Judge Mullins ruled that she was probably blocking access to the controls at least part of the time, also a clear safety hazard. (The possibility that she might have just been trying to work the foot pedals for him does not seem to have been explored.) The third party who had apparently been filming the stunt was also not identified.

This was not the first incident that had affected Martz's helicopter license. It had been suspended twice before, and revoked once, although those events dated back to the 1980s. Witnesses testified that Martz has cleaned up his act (among other things) since the 2005 incident captured on video, but he also had to admit that just a month after that, he had hit a wire in Mexico as a result of careless flying that did not even involve a porn star. And according to TMZ.com, Martz was also busted recently for allegedly flying his helicopter drunk and landing it in a residential area to pick up his client, Tommy Lee.

FAA attorney Lierre Green argued successfully that Martz's reckless actions "could have been disastrous," and even the defense witnesses ultimately had to agree. Cross-examining Ruben Campos, another pilot who works for Martz's business, Green asked, "Would you fly around and have someone give you oral sex?" "No, I would not," Campos said quietly.

Former SF supervisor Ed Jew was sentenced today to 64 months in jail by a judge in SF federal court. Judge Susan Illston apparently rejected the claim that the defendant had been afflicted by childhood head injuries that first manifested themselves by causing him to take bribes 40 years later.

She also does not seem to have bought the argument that Ed actually intended to use the money to help the citizens of his district. I guess he was keeping the money in his freezer so it would still be good when he got around to doing that.

The sentence is actually seven months longer than prosecutors had requested.

Here's an argument that Rod Blagojevich might want to take notes on, now that he has been very unsurprisingly indicted.

Former San Francisco supervisor Ed Jew (who I'm going to refer to as "Ed" here in hopes of not appearing in some very odd Google search results) pleaded guilty last year to bribery and extortion charges, after it came to light that he had demanded $80,000 from certain retailers in his district in exchange for business permits. (He said $40,000 of that was for "paperwork.") Actually, I guess I should not call it "his district" because it also turned out he did not live there, in violation of city residency requirements for supervisors. He resigned after pleading guilty to that and also to lying on election forms about where he lived when he ran for office. Ed is now facing almost five years in jail on federal charges of mail fraud, bribery and extortion, and is to be sentenced today.

In papers filed on Tuesday, Ed's attorney argued that his client should get leniency because the mail fraud, bribery and extortion were all caused by a head injury he suffered when he was eight years old. Or possibly one of the other three he has suffered, or possibly by the "accumulation" of head injuries over the years. It's not clear.

According to the statement, Ed and his younger sister were crossing the road that day some 40 years ago when a motorcyclist ran a red light and bore down upon them. Ed heroically pushed his sister to safety, "but was struck on the head by the handlebars of the motorcycle [first head injury] and catapulted in the air, falling on his head on the pavement [second head injury]." Whenever I am struck on the head by the handlebars of a motorcycle, it just knocks me down rather than catapulting me anywhere, but I guess that's possible. (Maybe he was trying to do a Jackie-Chan-style somersault over the bike, but came up short.)

Ed survived that incident, but his head-injury problems were far from over. Again according to the statement, Ed was later "struck by a truck while crossing the street [third head injury]" and in high school "was beaten up by several juvenile gang members because he refused to join a gang [fourth head injury]." And, as with all those who have suffered repeated head trauma as a youngster while engaged in mostly heroic activities, 30 years later these injuries manifested themselves by causing the victim to go out and extort money from tapioca-drink shops.

The statement says an examination concluded that "[t]he accumulation of head injuries, clearly the first injury being the most severe, has affected Ed's functioning in the world. . . . His social naivete and exuberance likely endeared him to people initially, helping him to become supervisor, but ultimately contributed to his downfall when more prudent judgment and impulse control were necessary," like when trying to resist the urge to extort things from people.

Note to all children who may aspire to political office: wear a helmet.